April 30, 2013

This time it's Joshua Rozenberg, one time legal correspondent for the BBC, writing for Standpoint magazine's May 2013 edition.

Let's just establish his Zionist credentials. I know I already said he used to work, maybe still works, for the beeb but let's see how he sets out his stall:

The UCU is far from being a supporter of the Jewish state. Fraser's view is that his union did nothing to stop institutionally anti-Semitic acts over several years. At its policy-making conferences in 2007 and in 2009, members supported academic boycotts of Israel. On legal advice, neither motion was implemented by the union's executive.

I can well understand how upset Fraser was by decisions such as these. In 2007, the National Union of Journalists voted at its annual meeting for a boycott of Israeli goods, a policy I could not possibly have respected. I resigned, after more than 30 years' loyal membership.

So he was a loyal union member until it took a decision he didn't like and that was to support the Palestinian cause.
Now where's the criticism of the Fraser v University and College Union Employment Tribunal case?

Of ten complaints brought by Fraser, all but one were dismissed as without substance, devoid of merit, palpably groundless, obviously untenable or hopeless. The tenth had been brought 18 months too late.

Well that's just factual and Rozenberg, as a Zionist, wants as badly as any antisemite to conflate Jewishness with support for the Zionist project so he's working within quite narrow constraints:

But, even if the tribunal was justified in concluding that Zionism was not a protected characteristic, this finding — though not binding on other courts — is glib to the point of offensiveness.

So what's the beef exactly?

Fraser cannot be blamed for bringing a misguided claim. But who transformed what the tribunal described as Fraser's "simple, down-to-earth" oral evidence into the "magnificent prose" of his written case? Fraser was represented by Anthony Julius, a leading campaigner against anti-Semitism. But the best advocate is one who can take a detached view of a client's case.

What explanation did Julius give theJewish Chronicle? Since he is the newspaper's chairman, I was confident he would favour it with an interview. Alas, he was "unavailable for comment this week".

I didn't mention that Joshua Rozenberg is Melanie Phillips's husband. She works for the Jewish Chronicle. Why doesn't she get in touch with Anthony Julius?

April 27, 2013

No sooner had I read an Electronic Intifada article about how Zionist have taken top posts at the BBC than I read that a programme questioning the story of the exile of Jews from Palestine has been pulled from BBC 4.

The details of the programme are still up on the Radio Times website. Here's the blurb:

The exile of the Jewish people has played a central role in Christian and Jewish theology for nearly 2,000 years, even being mentioned in Israel's national anthem and its declaration of independence. But what if the exile never actually happened?

This documentary by Ilan Ziv looks at new evidence that suggests the majority of the Jewish people may not have been exiled following the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Travelling from Galilee to Jerusalem and the catacombs of Rome, the film invites us to review and rethink our ideas around the exile, raising important ethical questions about its impact on present-day Middle Eastern issues along the way.

BBC documentary set to air last night has been mysteriously pulled from the broadcaster's line-up and has so far failed to appear on its online iPlayer service.

The programme, entitled, "Jerusalem: An Archaeological Mystery Story" was set to air on BBC Four last night at 9pm but was sharply pulled from the line-up in lieu of a programme called, "The Man Who Discovered Egypt" - a repeat of documentary about the British Egyptologist, Flinders Petrie.

The Jerusalem programme was noted by the Guardian's Martin Skegg as, "likely [to] ruffle some feathers" as it deals with the sensitive subject of Jewish exile from Jerusalem in 70AD.

The BBC told The Commentator over its audience participation telephone service that the film was initially brought in to "supplement" the BBC Four series on archaeology and history but that the station's planning department decided at the last minute that the documentary would not "fit editorially".

The BBC insisted that it "plans to show the programme in the future".

The Beeb's explanation doesn't fully explain why it was pulled from the schedule given that it was considered an editorial fit when the schedule was drawn up and for a long while after. But it certainly doesn't explain why it's been withheld from iPlayer.

And the Beeb "insisted that it "plans to show the programme in the future"". Well we shall see or maybe we won't.

April 25, 2013

Here's a little noticed quirky comment from Professor Geoffrey Alderman in the Jewish Chronicle the week before last. Last week's edition was the one that had Jonathan Goldberg QC ridiculing the notion of support for the Zionist project or attachment to the State of Israel being intrinsic to the Jewish identity.

Now let's have a look at what Alderman says:

The argument that "an attachment to Israel… is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness" is so manifestly absurd (I had only to consult my daily prayer book to reassure myself on this point) that I cannot believe any higher court would accept it. But if, indeed, at least for the moment, this ridiculous argument holds centre stage, it is blindingly obvious that it must be challenged - if not in a court of law then in some other public forum.

The critics have chosen to take five words out of context from this much longer passage in order to condemn the court for allegedly not recognising the attachment between the Jewish religion and Israel.

In context, the court was saying no more than that an attachment to the modern State of Israel (“modern” is important here) is not intrinsic to Jewishness. And that is surely correct.

Apparently Geoffrey Alderman has a very modern or even post-modern Jewish prayer book.

Of course, if his prayer book does include prayers for the modern State of Israel this begs the question of what the Jewish identity consisted of before the state was established. There's also the fact that prayer books in Hebrew and English which do mention or include prayers for the President and State of Israel also tend to include a prayer for Queen Elizabeth II, "Defender of the Faith". Would Alderman say that royalism is intrinsic to the Jewish identity? Maybe he would....

CORRECTION: According to Roland Rance in the comments

the prayer book includes a prayer for "the President OF the State of Israel", not "the President AND the State of Israel". Not quite the same thing...

Yup, not quite the same thing and it still begs the question, what does Professor Alderman's prayer book say that makes the Zionist project or the State of Israel intrinsic to the Jewish identity?

April 23, 2013

This article was first written and posted by my co-blogger, Gabriel Ash, back on 26 July 2009. It's wonderfully prophetic except the attempt to work a bogus definition into the law may have suffered a fatal setback. Now read on......

I have written at length about the excessively broad way in which the term 'antisemitism' is used, for example here. And a lot more on the subject and the much idiocy surrounding it can be found here on JSF through the tag cloud or the search function to the right. But this takes the cake. Hat tip to the post below for leading me to it.

From the REPORT OF THE ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO ANTISEMITISM of 2006:

We take into account the view expressed in the Macpherson report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry that a racist act is defined by its victim. It is not acceptable for an individual to say ‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words or acts are perceived to be racist. We conclude that it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what does and does not constitute antisemitism.

This paragraph is a fine example of spinning valid ideas and torturing them until they confess to unwarranted conclusions that serve sinister interests. The cited Macpherson report of 1999 examined institutional racism in the context of police investigations and policing in communities of color. The report, quite contrary to the poor reading above, did not identify racism as whatever the victim imagines. It cited plenty of hard objective evidence. For example:

One universal area of complaint was to do with the use of police powers of 'stop and search'. Statistics for 1997/98 showed that "black people were, on average, five times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people. The use of these powers for Asians and other ethnic groups varied widely." Black people are also "more likely to be arrested than white or other ethnic groups". The Inquiry concluded that ' It is pointless for the police service to try to justify the disparity in these figures purely or mainly in terms of the other factors which are identified. The majority of police officers who testified before us accepted that an element of the disparity was the result of discrimination. (A Summary of The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (Cm 4262-I))

Only in this established factual context of disempowered communities policed in a manner that is obviously and indisputably discriminatory, the inquiry recommended that the police define as 'racist incident...any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person'. The report did not therefore define racism as whatever an alleged victim of racism believes. On the contrary, the report provided an objective definition of institutional racism that our antisemitism obsessed friends chose to ignore. However, faced with evidence of widespread, objective racism and clear evidence that police officers were unaware of their own prejudices, the report recommended that the perception of the victims be taken seriously (because hard evidence suggested that it was not) and an investigation of racism be conducted based on the claim of the victim rather than the perception of the officer. It does not follow that the perception of the victim alone should be sufficient for actually labeling behavior as racist. Classifying an incident as a prima facie 'racist incident' does not establish racism just as classifying a police investigation as a 'murder case' does not establish that a murder actually occurred.

The Macpherson report recommendation cited above is sound. It analyzes racism in the context of marginalized communities. In this context, the view and perception of members of those communities are systematically discounted. It is obvious that people who are subject to abuse have better understanding of that abuse than others; their opinion ought to count. That it doesn't is itself an aspect of racism and also an obstacle to overcoming it. Forcing authorities to take these perceptions seriously is therefore one tool in fighting racism. We should have a strong presumption that people whose perceptions of their own conditions are systematically discounted are victims of racism, and therefore, we should have a presumption in favor of the likely validity of these perceptions. However, it is not the perception that validates itself, but the objective evidence, including the evidence that the perspective of the victim is systematically discounted that creates the strong presumption in favor of it. Thus, the reason we need to pay more attention to what people of color think about racism is not the mere fact that people of color claim they are victims of racism but because there is solid evidence that they are and that ignoring their experience and perception is a salient aspect of it.

The easiest way to dispatch the ridiculous "racism is whatever feels to me like racism" interpretation of the Macpherson report is to generalize it. There are plenty of high earning tax payers who consider high taxes discriminatory. In their perception, they are victims. Are rich taxpayers in the best position to decide what constitute unfair taxation? They are plenty of men who think having to ascertain that a woman really wants to have sex with them is an unfair burden put on their frail male shoulders. In their mind, they are victims. Should men be the judges of what is a fair or unfair burden regarding sexual consent? There are plenty of self-described "nordic" people in the U.S. who feel federal policies such as Affirmative Action are unfair and discriminate against them. Are white supremacists "in the best position" to define what constitutes racism against white people? Closer to home, in our beloved Israel, there are plenty of Jews who believe that it is discriminatory against them that Arabs don't serve in the army and don't pay taxes on houses built without (unobtainable) permits. Should we really conclude that in Israel there is systematic institutional racism against Jews? These examples can be generalized in the following way: having one's expectation of privilege unmet is often experienced by the subject as discrimination. The superficial similarity of affect between the experience of suffering an abuse of a right and that of suffering a non validation of an unearned privilege does not of course warrant equal treatment for both; those whose rights have been trampled need to be defended whereas those whose unearned privilege has not been fully validated need to be educated.

In the case of the British Jewish community and antisemitism, there is no evidence that Jews are socially and politically marginalized in any way. There is no evidence of systemic discrimination by any state authority, and no evidence that the perceptions of Jews are systematically ignored by authorities. If at all, there is more evidence that the opinions of "the Jewish community" (a suspect concept to begin with) are taken way too seriously by public authorities. What other community can marshal so msny public inquiries and hearings on the basis of so little actual harm to its members? Sure, since antisemitism is directed at Jews, Jews have a more intimate experience of antisemitism than non-Jews. Their opinion thus warrants special consideration. But all the evidence suggests that the opinion of Jews is already given all the consideration that is warranted and then some. The appropriate level of special consideration should not include the discretion to define antisemitism in an unreasonable way for an illegitimate purpose.

That brings us to the next paragraph of that pathetic document. After telling us that the professional representatives of the Jewish community should be left to define antisemitism in whatever unreasonable way they wish, the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry proceeds to prove exactly why this level of discretion is unwarranted by providing a clearly unreasonable definition of antisemitism.

Broadly, it is our view that any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him is antisemitic.

Writing a good definition can often be hard, but there is a level of sloppiness that one does not expect from paid public servants with a degree in Law or two. According to the aforementioned definition, if I call Alan Dershowitz a douchebag (as I am happy to do), that is antisemitic because he is Jewish. Of course, it would be very different if I were to call Dershowitz a stinking crooked-nosed money-lending International Jew (to be clear, I don't; douchebag is fine, really). But the definition does not make this elementary distinction. This cannot be a mere oversight, as the report goes on to claim that the provided definition is based on an established legal model, and

...reflects the definition of harassment under the Race Relations Act 1976.

Let us examine this claim: The relevant paragraph from that act reads (3A):

A person subjects another to harassment in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in section 1(1B)where, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, he engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of-

Our drafters are somewhat cavalier with the truth. Their definition indeed "reflects the definition of harassment...." like a broken, scratched and foggy mirror. First, the whole matter of actual harassment, that is the question of relations of power and discrimination, which is the very core of the Race Relations Act, has been eliminated altogether. Then, so was the crucial phrase "on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins." Namely the drafters chose to broaden the definition of antisemitism by taking the legal definition of harassment from the Race Relations Act of 1976 and extending it to acts, insults, and even remarks that occur outside of any context in which harassment or discrimination can take place, and by extending it to such instances in which the "victimized" person merely happens to be Jewish even if the incident is not motivated by it in any way.

Sloppy? It stretches credulity. The drafters knowingly dropped specific language in order to define antisemitism as any instance of saying something nasty about a person who happens to be Jewish, regardless of whether this involves any discrimination or denial of rights or even any connection to the recipient's Jewishness. The Race Relations Act and the Macpherson Report are both mentioned in order to create a false semblance of similarity to issues of racism facing communities of people of color. But these texts had to be gutted and mauled precisely because the agenda of the campaign against antisemitism is not to defend Jews from discrimination but to defend the unearned privilege that is accorded to (some) Jews in the West as a result of the role Israel plays within the global structures of imperialism. These sloppy definitions and their proliferation in official documents are both an example of the operation of this privilege and a strategy of expanding it by delegitimizing public challenges to some of the ideological beliefs favored by the representatives of Western Jewish communities, most notably the defense of Israeli apartheid.

Why go at length debunking a relatively unimportant paragraph in a three year old report? Note the MO. The All Parliamentary Inquiry did not actually use its own ridiculous definition in its own report. It knew better. For example, in paragraph 59, the report says "The Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations...accept that when a Jew is attacked or a Jewish building is vandalised, this should not automatically be classed as an act of antisemitism." Nevertheless, the definition is there for a reason. This year, we find it quoted as if it were an authority of antisemitism by the recent EISCA report. (The same happened to the no less sloppy definition of the EUMC.) In this manner what started life as a trivial piece of bad writing slowly becomes received wisdom. Soon enough, someone will suggest writing this language into the law, citing all these previous citations as evidence of authorial weight and public consensus.

Complaint (2): The Respondents’ response to the report of the All Party
Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism

77 The Inquiry was commissioned by Mr John Mann MP, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, and a witness before us. A cross-party committee of MPs (‘the Committee’) chaired by the Rt Hon Dr Denis MacShane, also a witness before us, was appointed and began work in 2005. It reported in September 2006.

148....We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to antiSemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us.

Now Denis MacShane is no longer an MP but he and John Mann MP were the charlatans who pulled this All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism together. Hopefully it will go the way of MacShane and the Fraser case.

As I've already posted on this I was going to just run my favourite bits but as I read through it again all sorts of questions ran through my mind. So here's the whole thing:

Rebecca from Finchley writes: I was furious to read your comment last week that bringing the Ronnie Fraser harassment case against the University College Union was “an act of epic folly”. Surely it was high time the Anglo-Jewish community stood up for its rights, win or lose?

Rebecca, I am unrepentant in my view that bringing the Ronnie Fraser litigation was a legal and public relations disaster. All those concerned should first have reminded themselves of the rabbinical saying that “All Israel is accountable one for the other.”

It was misconceived in law, wasted a fortune in legal costs (rumoured in legal circles to be over £500,000) but worst of all showed no Jewish seichel or streetsmarts whatsoever. (Where did that money come from? I only heard about £50k and £70k)

You only litigate such hotly contentious matters if you are being dragged to court as the defendant and thus have no choice, or if, as claimant, you are sure to win. This case sent out the worst possible message to our many hate-filled enemies, namely that rich Jews threw huge resources at a failed attempt to stifle free speech. The result was entirely predictable and had been anticipated by several wise legal heads.(Well presumably there were rich Jews throwing huge resources at a failed attempt to stifle free speech but since many of the Palestine solidarity activists in the UCU are Jewish, I don't think they'll bring the Jewishness of the mystery donors into it)

From a lawyer’s point of view, it is impeccably written and all too compelling. I cannot see any viable appeal arising from it and I would predict further damage and ignominious failure if such were attempted.

I do not accept that the court was antisemitic, as Dr David Hirsh and others have insinuated. Should Jews now be whiners who cannot admit we fought the wrong battle and miscalculated badly? (ah but Mr Goldberg doesn't understand the political stakes. The court actually stated the obvious. The court merely said what the Palestine solidarity activists were arguing all along. So what could Hirsh et al do? Own up to bad faith allegations of antisemitism? There was of course another path open to them, the technicality path tried by Paul Usiskin at Open Zion and Sarah Annes Brown at Harry's Place but their dishonesty is as transparent as Hirsh's, just not as ludicrous.)

Do those who so rashly suggest on such shaky foundations that an English court was antisemitic have any conception of the damage they are doing to our community thereby? (I don't think the courts will judge the whole Jewish community by the bogus reasoning and grandstanding of a bunch of chancers but Goldberg's the QC, not me)

Of the 10 factual complaints brought by Mr Fraser against the union, all but one were found to be unmeritorious after an exhaustive 20-day evidential investigation, with detailed reasons being given as to why the court rejected them. And even that one was brought out of time.

A main premise underpinning the claim — that the union was responsible in law for anti-Israel views promulgated by individual members in its annual congresses and in-house internet chatroom — was held wrong in law. (But it was only an error in law. I wouldn't have known that and I don't think it would be obvious to everyone that things happening under the auspices of a union aren't the responsibility of the union.) Nor was that by any means the only error of law.(Nor was it the only issue period.)

The underlying notion that a commitment to Zionism should be a “protected characteristic” in English employment law was in my view almost as fanciful as suggesting that supporting Tottenham Hotspur should be a protected characteristic, because so many Jews do so.(I've often said similar, at least I used to want to ask if it's antisemitic to not like smoked salmon beigels. I'll use the Tottenham Hotspur argument now. But this does blow the bogus concept of the "new antisemitism" away. Some zionists try to attach the more obvious forms of antisemitism to arguments against zionism but what they've been trying on for some decades now is the argument that simply opposing the State of Israel is antisemitic)

Who is qualified to say, unless they sat through the 20 days of evidence, that the particular criticisms made of the evidence of Jeremy Newmark and two MPs were not reasonable. And just as important, why did Mr Newmark and the others ever voluntarily place themselves in a position to be so criticised in support of a claim brought on such dubious legal foundations?(Regarding the MPs this is important. Mann claimed to know where the line was between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. The judgment noted with a sneer that he was unable to locate the line for the Tribunal. Other witnesses couldn't agree on what amounted to antisemitism with regard to criticism of the State of Israel. Fraser said that calling Israel an apartheid state was antisemitic whilst Mr Whine of the CST said it wasn't. The dismissal of Denis MacShane's evidence was important too. He tried to use the MacPherson Report to support Fraser's case but the judgment said that MacShane didn't understand MacPherson. The MacPherson Report arising out of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry has been used by many Zionists to justify the working definition of antisemitism. See Gabriel Ash on this. Suffice to say, this judgment should blow the whole shebang away, the Zionist abuse of the Macpherson Report, the so-called EUMC Working Definition of antisemitism and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Antsemitism.

So much for the MPs. What about Newmark? What possessed him to lie to a court about an incident involving himself? He's the CEO of a group, the Jewish Leadership Council, many see as the main liaison between the organised Jewish community and the British public at large. He is now claiming that the judgment was a travesty. Does he mean about him? The judges said that "truthful witnesses" exposed him as a liar. Is he calling these "truthful witnesses" liars? Another question about Jeremy Newmark is how come he is still the CEO of the JLC? Is there no disciplinary procedure? Does the JLC approve of lying about antisemitism? Is this how it works? Shocking! Not!)

And why should the court be criticised, as so many have done in this newspaper, for saying “a belief in the Zionist project, or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment, cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief.”

The critics have chosen to take five words out of context from this much longer passage in order to condemn the court for allegedly not recognising the attachment between the Jewish religion and Israel. (Writers in the JC have taken words out of context to alter their meaning? Surely not! Has the editor, Stephen Pollard, read the judgment and some of the ludicrous articles appearing under his watch and given more prominence on line than this one?)

In context, the court was saying no more than that an attachment to the modern State of Israel (“modern” is important here) is not intrinsic to Jewishness. And that is surely correct.

I yield to nobody in my love for Israel and my support for Zionism. But who can ignore the stark fact that many fellow Jews, including, for example, certain Israeli academics and at least one sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews, are among Israel’s most rabid detractors, whereas many gentiles are fervent Zionists (Lord bless them).(Well not a nice way of putting it but I've always thought that an insidious form of antisemitism is the smearing of Jewish anti-Zionists as being somehow unJewish. I won't and I don't say that Jews can't be antisemitic but when so many of us refuse to identify ourselves with such a criminally racist project as the Zionist project or the State of Israel who can say that Zionism is part of the Jewish identity? And that's without getting into the thousands of years when there was no such thing as Zionism)

Why was not a fraction of these legal resources used instead to bring a private prosecution against those activists who disrupted the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra or the Batsheva Dance Company?(I suppose that's up to the people stumping up the resources whoever they are.)

Such cases would almost certainly have succeeded. Having recently attended the stellar AIPAC conference in Washington, Rebecca, I have to say this debacle would never have happened in America.(Actually something slightly similar did occur in America but Zionism is better organised there and to the Zionist movement's chagrin, anti-Zionists are better organised here. This means that Zionists don't have to resort to the courts there whereas in the case of the UCU they thought they had no choice here. If they did have to resort to the courts in the USA who knows what might happen?)

Unlike in the UK, communal organisations there are not constantly jockeying with one another for power and prestige — and the left hand actually does know what the right is doing.(See what I mean, they're better organised there than here. But where are they going to go now? Get rid of Newmark? Get rid of Julius? Get rid of the bogus allegation of antisemitism?)

All sorts of possibilities but the bogus allegation has certainly been dealt a body blow as some rare honest Zionists are starting to realise.

April 22, 2013

I'm guessing that Ronnie Fraser's lawyer, Anthony Julius, is still on the missing list because poor Ron is being a bit of a loose cannon regarding the FUCU judgment. This time he's talking to the Times of Israel.

In an interview with Times of Israel, Fraser says he was “saddened” by the decision, but three weeks on is stoical, buoyed by a stream of supportive messages from around the world.He lost, he says, because the judges did not clearly understand what anti-Semitism is, particularly the “new anti-Semitism” which seeks to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state, not just the Jewish people.
Those who believe that Israel is not “intrinsically a part of Jewishness” probably do not understand Jewish heritage, he says. The problem is that there is no definition of anti-Semitism enshrined in British law.

Now the judges clearly addressed the fact that there is "no definition of antisemitism enshrined in British law". They even addressed the fact that there was no definition of antisemitism agreed by everyone on Ronnie Fraser's own side.

51... Among the vast field of witnesses on the Claimant’s side, there was an interesting spread of opinions on where the line is, or should be, drawn. So, to take one of many examples, Mr Whine of the Community Security Trust, an organisation which provides security, training and advice for British Jews, did not consider that comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa were inherently anti-Semitic, whereas the Claimant did.

The Tribunal also found that the Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, John Mann MP, couldn't seem to define antisemitism with regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict either.

148....when it came to antiSemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he [John Mann MP] announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it
for us.

11 By a claim form presented on 25 August 2011 the Claimant sues the
Respondents for harassment based on his protected characteristics of race (Jewish) and religion or belief (Jewish). Many of the allegations relied on featured in Mr Julius’s letter of 3 June 2008, but more recent matters are also pleaded.

Now harassment based on protected characteristics of Jews used to be known as antisemitism or anti-Jewish racism but as we have seen, even Zionists can't agree on what constitutes antisemitism so we're left with harassment based on protected characteristics. I know I've covered this many times but I enjoy it so much and it is very important because it blows away Zionist definitions of antisemitism so let's see what the Tribunal says about those "protected characteristics" of Jews:

150 It seems to us that a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or
any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief. Accordingly, if and in so far as the Claimant seeks to base his claim on what might be termed a sub-characteristic (we are bound to say that we remain uncertain as to Mr Julius’s position on this point), we find that it is not open to him to do so. A separate matter, which we will address in relation to the individual claims, is whether the treatment complained of, or any of it, was ‘related to’ his Jewish race or his Jewish religion or belief.

And now let's look at the logic poor Ron deploys to criticise the judgment and what he thinks must now be done to win a future case:

“If I was to call you a dirty Jew, the police could take action. If I call you a Zionist and a racist, they won’t – it’s deemed to be political discourse. But Zionist is a substitute word for Jew.”

One lesson from the trial, he believes, is that the community must set, publicize and insist on its own definition of anti-Semitism – a challenge he is willing to take on himself. It must also reclaim the narrative of Israel being central to a Jewish identity.

“We have to define it as Jews, for ourselves. We can’t let other people define what Jews are,” he says.

So Ron has decided that anyone referring to zionists must be referring to Jews. He then goes on to say that zionist Jews like himself must be the ones to define who is a Jew and that Jews must be defined as Zionists. But that problem has already been addressed in the judgment. Look again:

belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel.........is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief.

So even if Ron succeeded in having Jews redefined as people who support the "Zionist project" or have an "attachment to [the State of] Israel" he still couldn't claim that as a "protected characteristic". This is abundantly clear in the judgment. This is what leads me to believe that he may not be the "sincere witness" the judgment says he is or his lawyer, Anthony Julius isn't around to explain these things to him. But then when it comes to defining characteristics or "sub-characteristics" of Jews, the Tribunal did say "we remain uncertain as to Mr Julius’s position on this point."

The aim of this symposium is to reflect on the government's integration strategy and to do so in the light of both contemporary developments and recent scholarship. We intend to bring the most current evidence-based research to bear on urgent issues of policy for an invited audience of academic experts, policy makers and parliamentarians.

John Mann MP will open the symposium, which is organised into three panels.

Please note, places are limited and by invitation only. If you would like to participate please let us know by replying to pearsinstitute@bbk.ac.uk, stating your institutional affiliation and/or area of interest.

Apparently there are some good eggs in there but there are some rotten ones too. The first thing I noticed is that the notice doesn't mention whose integration, disadvantage and extremism is being discussed.

Four participants I was already aware of are John Mann MP, Ben Gidley, Dave Rich and Dean Godson.

148 ..... We did not derive assistance from the
two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence,
appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr
MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of
which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that
assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the
way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were
doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to
have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to antiSemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear
to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it
for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed
at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

And John Mann is the Chair of these proceedings on Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism and, as far as a I know, he is still Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism. Actually, on that latter, let's have a quick look at what the Tribunal said about the Parliamentary Group. It comes out of Complaint (2) of Ronnie Fraser's case against UCU which was the UCU's response to the report of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism:

157 Complaint (2) is also devoid of any merit. The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.

There's a lot more to it than that but between paragraph's 148 and 157 you get the full measure of John Mann MP and his All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism. You may also be left wondering what he is doing chairing anything at the House of Commons.

Institutional antisemitismThere is currently in London an employment tribunal concerning the long-harassment of one Ronnie Fraser in UCU, a trade union. I intend to write about this, but only after the Tribunal concludes, but here in the meantime is some commentary: from Ben Cohen in Commentary, from Marcus Dysch, from the Times of Israel.

Look at the impeccable sources he links! But sadly he has been a bit of a slouch when it comes to making good on his intention "to write about the long-harassment of Ronnie Fraser in UCU, a [Ben Gidley's] trade union". As Ben Gidley he's tweeted links to a couple of dodgy articles on the judgment. He hasn't linked the judgment itself and he has steered well clear of even the articles by Zionists which show what a humiliation FUCU was for all concerned on Ronnie Fraser's side.

Dean Godson

The last one that I knew anything of when I saw the notice is Dean Godson. Here's how Irish journalist, Ed Moloney, on his The Broken Elbow blog, describes Godson:

Dean Godson’s two passions in life are Israel and Ireland, or to be more specific the cause of Likud and Ulster Unionism whose twin fates he saw threatened by the temptations of dialogue with untrustworthy terrorist adversaries, the PLO and the IRA, in the search for peace and political accommodation.

And the rest

I've never known anything about the other people involved though I have heard that Rob Berkeley, Nasar Meer and Maleiha Malik are well worth a listen. That's of course, not to say that the others aren't.

Also I was told that the Pears Institute is a serious group though it may be trying a little too hard to be broad and inclusive.

I suppose we can hope that the rotten eggs present in the august surrounds of Portcullis House won't render the whole thing a curate's egg.

April 20, 2013

I'm not sure if this link works If it does you will see a pdf page of an article by Jonathan Goldberg QC in the Jewish Chronicle.

UPDATE: Here's a copy of the pdf. Click on it to make it bigger (I think)

Right let's have a look at what it says:

First up the headline is a bit dodgy. It's Why the Ronnie Fraser case against the UCU was a legal and public relations disaster". Now it wasn't simply legality and PR. It was the presentation of dubious descriptions of events and a ludicrous definition of who is a Jew and what, therefore, antisemitism or anti-Jewish racism means. In other words, the facts of the case that were against Fraser and his team.

In fairness, Goldberg gets into all that so I'm guessing he didn't write the headline. I should point out that the article appeared in the same edition that carried the front page headline, Union case is 'Hitler's legacy' so the fact that it has a misleading headline and doesn't appear in the regular website presumably has something to do with JC editor, Stephen Pollard.

So here are some choice snippets:

It was misconceived in law, wasted a fortune in legal costs (rumoured in legal circles to be over £500,000) but worse of all it showed no Jewish seichel or streetsmart whatsoever.

Wow! £500k? Who from? Where from? Fraser mentioned sums like £70k and £50k going from the JC's Fair Play Campaign Group to Engage and it has never really been denied definitively. There have also been online rumours of Israeli government support for "lawfare" cases in the UK but I've never seen as much as £500k mentioned before.

I do not accept that the court was antisemitic, as Dr Hirsh and others have insinuated.....

Do those who so rashly suggest on such shaky foundations that an English court was antisemitic have any conception of the damage they are doing to our community thereby?

What about points of fact and law?

Of the 10 factual complaints...all but one were found to be unmeritorious....with detailed reasons being given as to why the court rejected them.....

A main premise..- that the union was responsible in law for anti-Israel views promulgated by individual members...- was held wrong in law. Nor was that by any means the only error in law

We now get to possibly the best bit:

The underlying notion that a commitment to Zionism should be a "protected characteristic" in English employment law was in my view almost as fanciful as suggesting that supporting Tottenham Hotspur should be a protected characteristic, because so many Jews do so.

He goes on to criticise those who take umbrage at the court's withering criticisms of the two MP witnesses ("glib evidence") for Fraser and the Jewish Leadership Council CEO, Jeremy Newmark, ("untrue", "preposterous", "extraordinarily arrogant", "disturbing") before returning to the "protected characteristics" issue:

...why should the court be criticised.....for saying "a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or
any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not
intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for
the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief."

The critics have chosen to take five words out of context.....

In context, the court was saying no more than that an attachment to the modern State of Israel ("modern" is important here) is not intrinsic to Jewishness. And that is surely correct.

....who can ignore the stark fact that many fellow Jews, including, for example, certain Israeli academics and at least one sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews, are among Israel's most rabid detractors, whereas many gentiles are fervent zionists (Lord bless them).

The QC then goes on to suggest legal fights that Zionists could win, like suing for disrupting Zionist events.

He could be a surer ground there unless the disrupters of events can show that they are merely trying to prevent worse crimes by the racist war criminals of the State of Israel and their supporters.

What clearly won't work any more is the lie that Jews are essentially Zionists and that therefore anti-Zionism is a form of racism. Jews have many different political persuasions and anti-Zionism is one of many forms of anti-racism.

When zionists began expressing their dismay over the FUCU result and showing their inability to grasp, or at least state, simple truths about their bogus campaign to smear Israel's opponents, critics and victims as antisemites an academic called Mike Cushman wrote an article titled It's about the Palestinians stupid. It began as follows:

To no one’s surprise a Zionist claque has swiftly assembled to denounce the findings of the Fraser vs UCU employment tribunal. It would appear that according to these voices the only business a the next meeting of UCU’s national executive will not be fighting the massive cuts in UK higher and further education but organising the logistics on cattle trucks.

My emphasis. But I was anxious and wrote to Mike:

I think the bit about the cattle trucks is unduly provocative as well as an exaggeration which the oppo could use to detract from credibility.

So we/he ran with:

To no one’s surprise a Zionist claque has swiftly assembled to denounce the findings of the Fraser vs UCU Employment Tribunal. It would appear that according to these voices the only business a the next meeting of UCU’s national executive will not be fighting the massive cuts in UK higher and further education but debating when and in what format to reissue The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Well how wrong I was. Look at this insane headline from today's Jewish Chronicle.

Union case was ‘Hitler’s legacy’

That is the main headline on the front page of today's print edition.
The article went on line yesterday and took pride of place on the home page. It was trailed by the @JewishChron tweeter/twitterer(?) as follows:

But now the Jewish Chronicle's online editor must be a little anxious about running such an insane headline. Follow the link and you will see that they have not just ditched the headline from the home page but there is no link to the article at all on the home page. You have to click on More UK News to find it and then it's relegated to the second page as of now. Or you can click on another link, News and if you're quick you'll find it at the bottom of a list of news items:

Anyway, let's have a slice of this Marcus Dysch piece which was important enough for the front page of the print edition but so insane as to virtually hide on the website:

When the result came, just hours before Pesach, he went into shock. According to his wife, the impact was dramatic: “It did not come out in an emotional way. It came out physically. Ronnie was bent over, he couldn’t walk. Daily life stopped.”

She said the case had become “part of Hitler’s legacy”.

Mr Fraser said: “I got a phone call at 4.10pm on Seder night to say we lost. Initially it didn’t hit me. We always knew we could lose. When I read the judgment it sunk in.

“My lawyers advised me that we could win and we put a case together.

Now this guy might be serious and possibly unintelligent or even mentally unstable. He frequently broke down in tears at the hearing. He was the only one of 29 or so victims to have been so emotional. He has completely misrepresented the case and the outcome. The case was about racial harassment. The judges were clear that they would not venture into the murky waters of what amounts to antisemitism because even the zionists couldn't agree on that. But we can all agree on what constitutes racism. It is offending against the protected characteristics of an identity group, ethnicity or religion, but definitely not support for a political project, like, say the Zionist project. This was made abundantly clear in paragraph 150 of the FUCU judgment.

But who was the lawyer who told him he could win this case? Why it's none other than Anthony Julius, the Chair of the Jewish Chronicle, also mentioned in the judgment but not in this obscenely headlined article. It now appears that the front page article by Marcus Dysch was an embarrassment to the Jewish Chronicle on line. But the Chair of the Jewish Chronicle is now an embarrassment to the Jewish Chronicle in any format. In fact he hasn't been heard from at all since the judgment was published.

April 18, 2013

This year's programme comprises 24 events at the Barbican Cinema and University of London, involving 38 titles, 24 guest speakers, and the UK's first international conference on Palestine and the Moving Image.

Opening with a gala screening of David Koff's trailblazing 1981 documentary, Occupied Palestine, the 2013 programme boasts historic depth with rarities including a thematic session marking the 25th anniversary of the first intifada, and an outing for Elia Suleiman's debut,Homage by Assassination (part of 1991 portmanteau The Gulf War... What Next?).

There's plenty of fresh material on offer too, with some 20 premieres, including a sharp new doc on life in the Syrian Golan heights, a revealing account of the vast quarrying industries in the West Bank, and the story of a spectacular kite flying world record bid in Gaza. Exceptional shorts and animations run throughout the programme, along with some bold new experimental works from Palestine and beyond.

Tickets are now on sale.Scroll down to explore the programme.(click on film stills for individual synopses and selected film trailers)

April 17, 2013

From November 2012 to January 2013 there were two complaints of antisemitism against people connected to the Sunday Times. The first was from anti-racists against Rupert Murdoch for the following tweet:

Of course Murdoch's antisemitic tweet asserting Jewish press ownership and a failure of Jews to live up to his expectations didn't appear in any of his papers. I just searched The Jewish Chronicle website for mention of the tweet and found nothing. The Gerald Scarfe cartoon for which Murdoch and Scarfe apologised got nearly twenty mentions in the JC and there were complaints to the Press Complaints Commission.

Well apparently the PCC is still on the case, three months down the line. Apparently there were two grounds for complaint. One is that showing an Israeli leader with blood on his hands recalls the blood libel even though saying Netanyahu has blood on his hands is perfectly true. The other is that the cartoon appeared on Holocaust Memorial Day. There are then two problems here involving the privileging of Israel. One is, no matter how violent the State of Israel is to its natives and neighbours, cartoonists are not allowed to show blood on an Israeli leader's hands. The other is that even if you are allowed to draw such images, there is a day of the year when all other leaders can be portrayed with blood on that hands but not Israeli leaders.

April 16, 2013

It was well worth the wait. Jeremy Newmark, the CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council, has issued his verdict on the FUCU Employment Tribunal that found his evidence to be "untrue", "false", "playing to the gallery", "extraordinarily arrogant" and "also disturbing".

The arrogant and disturbing bit was in relation to Newmark's suggestion that the University and College Union was "no longer a fit arena for free speech". Looking at Twitter today it appears that Jeremy Newmark is still willing to threaten free speech about the racist war criminals of the State of Israel:

But it is the Jewish Chronicle where, assuming the report is accurate, he has fully justified the ET's descriptions of him:

The judgment in the case of an academic who accused the University College Union of harassment and institutional antisemitism was “devastating” and a “travesty”, the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council has claimed.

Now when the Tribunal said that a claim he had made about "booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers" was "untrue" or "false", they were going on the evidence, among other things like recordings, of people the ET described as "truthful witnesses". Is Jeremy Newmark saying that these "truthful witnesses" were actually the liars and that he was the one telling the truth? I wonder if these "truthful witnesses" will write into the JC to clarify this for us. Let's face it we can't believe a word Newmark says.

But the JC didn't just give him space to imply that zionist witnesses other than him were lying. They allowed him to misrepresent the whole proceedings. Look:

In the judgment, published last month following a three-week hearing last year, employment tribunal judge Anthony Snelson said Mr Newmark’s evidence had been “false, preposterous, extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing”.

But speaking at a Manchester Jewish Representative Council meeting on Sunday, Mr Newmark hit back.

Right now let's look at where those words appear in the judgment and what they related to:

False: already mentioned above. This was Newmark's claim that there had been "booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers".Preposterous: This was Newmark's claim that he was being stereotyped as a "pushy Jew" over his attempt to push his way into a union meeting.Extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing: Again, mentioned above. This was Newmark's description of the UCU as "no longer a fit space for free speech".

So, now let's watch Mr Newmark "hit back":

He said the tribunal’s finding that there could be no link between Jewish identity and support of Israel “cannot be left to stand”.

“That is a shocking and ignorant statement to make. It is something that will have to be followed up," he said.

“If a Jew is bullied or harassed in the work place or his trade union, and part of that bullying or harassment contains anti-Israel slogans, material or activity, then to take that forward to the judicial system is considered by this panel in their ruling as an attempt to usurp the British judicial process for political means – that’s something that is very, very wrong.”

Did you see what happened there? He's been called preposterous, and a disturbingly arrogant liar and he hasn't hit back against any of that. He's simply changed the subject whilst showing he has lost none of his propensity for untruth.

The Tribunal did not say that there "could be no link between Jewish identity and support of Israel". The Tribunal said:

150 It seems to us that a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or
any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not
intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for
the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief. Accordingly, if
and in so far as the Claimant seeks to base his claim on what might be termed a
sub-characteristic (we are bound to say that we remain uncertain as to Mr Julius’s
position on this point), we find that it is not open to him to do so.

They didn't say there's no link. They said there is no intrinsic link between support for Israel and being Jewish and that even if there was it still couldn't amount to a "protected characteristic".

What's the matter with Newmark? Has he not read the report?

But anyway, just to clarify. Even if he could show that support for colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and racist laws was an intrinsic part of Jewishness, he still couldn't use that to prevent campaigning against those repugnant things.

He goes on to say,

“It wasn't just Ronnie, it was hundreds of Jewish members [who] felt there was an atmosphere of bullying and harassment. Many decided to leave their union.

But surely the zionist members that left the union wouldn't have been at the meetings where, in his evidence, Newmark had complained there had been "booing, jeering and harassment of Jewish speakers". So he's hit back against allegations that haven't been made.

And that's the leader of Jewish leaders in the UK. When he finally takes his opportunity to refute the allegation that he is a preposterous arrogant liar, he changes the subject and tells more lies.